USTR Section 301 Forced Labor Hearings (April 28-29, 2026): Which 60 Countries Are in Scope and What Importers Should Do This Week

## USTR Section 301 Forced Labor Hearings (April 28-29, 2026): Which 60 Countries Are in Scope and What Importers Should Do This Week

The Office of the United States Trade Representative is holding public hearings today and tomorrow (April 28-29, 2026) at the U.S. International Trade Commission's main hearing room at 500 E Street SW, Washington DC, on the Section 301 investigation into the failure of approximately 60 trading partners to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor. The hearings start at 10:00 AM ET each day and are open to the public. Witnesses include US importers, labor advocacy groups, foreign government delegations, and industry associations. This is the formal evidence-gathering phase of a Section 301 investigation that could result in new tariffs on goods from any of the 60 economies if USTR ultimately determines that an enforcement failure has occurred.

This article lists every country currently in scope, explains the statutory mechanics of how a Section 301 forced labor case becomes a tariff, walks through three worked exposure examples, and gives importers a concrete checklist of moves to make in the next 30, 60, and 90 days. The runway here is real: a Section 301 final determination is a 6 to 12 month process, but the comment and witness participation windows close much earlier, and the entry data importers need to participate effectively is the same data they need to make sourcing decisions.

What the Hearings Are Actually About

The forced labor Section 301 investigation was opened by USTR in March 2026 under the broad Section 301(b) authority that lets the United States respond to "acts, policies, and practices" of foreign countries that are unjustifiable, unreasonable, or discriminatory and that burden or restrict US commerce. The legal theory in this case is that the failure of approximately 60 trading partners to enforce existing forced labor import prohibitions creates an unfair competitive advantage for goods produced under coerced labor, which displaces US production and puts compliant US importers at a price disadvantage.

This is a different statutory pathway than the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) detentions that CBP applies at the entry level. UFLPA operates as a rebuttable presumption against imports from the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. The new Section 301 case operates at the country level and would, if a final determination is made, create new tariff lines applied to goods from the targeted country, not entry-level detentions. The two regimes are complementary: an importer could face UFLPA detention on a specific entry and a Section 301 country-level tariff on the same product simultaneously.

The April 28-29 hearings are the public testimony phase. The post-hearing comment window typically closes 2 to 4 weeks after the final hearing day. After comments close, USTR publishes a determination — either dismissing the case, narrowing the country list, or proposing tariffs and a product list for further public comment. The earliest realistic tariff implementation date on this case is fall 2026.

The 60 Economies in Scope

The investigation covers approximately 60 economies. The list is broad and intentionally captures both major US trading partners and smaller suppliers across every region. The countries publicly named in the USTR Federal Register notice fall into the following groupings.

Asia-Pacific large economies in scope: China, India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Laos, Nepal, and Mongolia. China is in scope on top of its existing Section 301 List 1, 2, 3, and 4A tariff exposure — meaning a final determination here could stack a forced labor Section 301 rate on top of the existing 25% List 1-3 and 7.5% List 4A rates. India and Vietnam are the highest-volume non-China Asian trade partners by US import value, and any forced labor tariff against them would have meaningful downstream impact across apparel, electronics, and machinery supply chains.

Latin America and Caribbean in scope: Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela, Paraguay, Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, and Haiti. The CAFTA-DR partners (Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic) are in scope despite their free trade agreement status. USMCA partners Canada and Mexico are not in scope of this investigation.

Africa in scope: Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, Ethiopia, Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Sudan, South Sudan, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Angola, and Mauritania. Apparel produced under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) and cocoa, coffee, and gold from West Africa are likely focus categories.

Middle East and Central Asia in scope: Turkey, Iraq, Iran (already heavily sanctioned), Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. Cotton from Central Asia, electronics assembly from Turkey, and migrant labor concerns across Gulf states are the likely focus.

Europe in scope: Belarus, Russia (already sanctioned), Ukraine, Moldova, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Most EU member states are not in scope.

The majority of the United States' top 25 trading partners by import value have at least some entries on the in-scope list when looked up by country of origin. That is a deliberate feature of the case: USTR is signaling that forced labor enforcement failures are a global problem requiring a coordinated tariff response, not a single-country dispute.

Statutory Mechanics: How a Forced Labor 301 Case Becomes a Tariff

Section 301 cases follow a defined procedural path. Understanding the timeline matters because importers have rights to participate at each stage and the entry-level data needed to participate is also the data needed to make sourcing decisions.

Stage 1: Investigation initiation (March 2026, complete). USTR published the Federal Register notice opening the investigation. The notice defined the country scope and the legal theory.

Stage 2: Public comment period and hearing scheduling (March-April 2026, complete). Interested parties filed pre-hearing written comments and requested witness slots.

Stage 3: Public hearings (April 28-29, 2026, today and tomorrow). Witnesses present testimony in person at the ITC. Hearings are public and a transcript will be published in the docket within 2 weeks.

Stage 4: Post-hearing comment window (closes approximately mid-May 2026). Parties have approximately 2 to 4 weeks after the final hearing to file written rebuttal comments responding to testimony.

Stage 5: USTR determination (summer 2026 likely). USTR publishes a determination either closing the case, narrowing the country list, or proposing a tariff product list and rate.

Stage 6: Tariff product list comment period (if Stage 5 produces a tariff proposal). Another 30 to 60 day public comment period, this time specifically on the proposed product list (HTS classifications) and rate.

Stage 7: Final tariff implementation (fall 2026 to early 2027). Tariff rates take effect for entries on or after the implementation date. Goods on the water as of the implementation date are typically subject to the new tariff unless USTR includes a transit window exception.

The earliest realistic date a forced labor Section 301 tariff could take effect on entries from any of the 60 in-scope countries is approximately October 2026. That gives importers 5 to 6 months to model exposure, identify substitution candidates, and execute sourcing changes. Importers who wait until the Stage 6 comment period to begin preparation typically end up paying the tariff for at least the first 6 to 12 months of implementation while substitution efforts catch up.

Three Worked Examples

### Example 1: Indian Cotton Apparel Importer

A US importer brings in 200,000 units of woven cotton men's shirts from India at a customs value of $2,400,000 per quarterly shipment. Base MFN duty on HTS 6205.20 (cotton men's shirts) is 19.7%.

Today's duty stack (April 29, 2026):** - Base MFN (19.7%): $472,800 - Section 122 (10%): $240,000 - Section 232: Not applicable - Section 301: Not applicable - **Total CBP duty: $712,800 | Effective rate: 29.7%

With a hypothetical 15% forced labor Section 301 tariff:** - Base MFN: $472,800 - Section 122 (10%): $240,000 - Section 301 (15%): $360,000 - **Total CBP duty: $1,072,800 | Effective rate: 44.7%

For a four-shipment-per-year program, the annual swing is $1.44M in duty. At the 25% Section 301 rate that has been used in past forced labor adjacent cases, the swing is $2.4M. Apparel substitution is feasible (Vietnam, Bangladesh, and Cambodia produce similar cotton shirts, but all three are also on the in-scope list — substitution is into smaller suppliers like Egypt, Honduras, or Jordan that are not on the list).

### Example 2: Vietnamese Electronics Assembly Importer

A US importer brings in 50,000 units of consumer electronics from Vietnam at a customs value of $5,000,000 per shipment. Base MFN on most HTS Chapter 85 electronics is 0% to 2.6%.

Today's duty stack:** - Base MFN (1.5% blended): $75,000 - Section 122 (10%): $500,000 - Section 232: Not applicable - Section 301: Not applicable - **Total CBP duty: $575,000 | Effective rate: 11.5%

With a hypothetical 10% forced labor Section 301 tariff:** - Base MFN: $75,000 - Section 122 (10%): $500,000 - Section 301 (10%): $500,000 - **Total CBP duty: $1,075,000 | Effective rate: 21.5%

Vietnam is the largest non-China Asian electronics assembly hub. Substitution to non-in-scope countries means moving into Mexico (USMCA), the Philippines (in scope, smaller volume), or back to China (already 25% Section 301 List 3 plus the 10% Section 122). Most importers facing this scenario find that Vietnam-to-Mexico is the only economically meaningful substitution, and Mexico capacity is constrained.

### Example 3: Cocoa Importer from Cote d'Ivoire

A US food manufacturer imports cocoa beans from Cote d'Ivoire at a customs value of $800,000 per monthly shipment. Cocoa beans (HTS 1801) enter duty-free under standard MFN.

Today's duty stack:** - Base MFN (0%): $0 - Section 122 (10%): $80,000 - **Total CBP duty: $80,000 | Effective rate: 10%

With a hypothetical 7.5% forced labor Section 301 tariff:** - Base MFN: $0 - Section 122 (10%): $80,000 - Section 301 (7.5%): $60,000 - **Total CBP duty: $140,000 | Effective rate: 17.5%

Cocoa is one of the categories most commonly cited in forced labor academic literature on West Africa. Substitution out of Cote d'Ivoire is structurally hard — Cote d'Ivoire and Ghana together produce roughly 60% of the world's cocoa, and Ghana is also on the in-scope list. The realistic playbook for this importer is supplier-level due diligence documentation, third-party certification (Fair Trade, Rainforest Alliance), and pass-through pricing.

To run your own exposure scenarios across the 60 in-scope countries, use the Duty & Tariff Calculator and the Tariff Stacking Calculator at 7.5%, 10%, 15%, and 25% rates.

What Will Likely Be on the Product List

Section 301 forced labor cases historically focus on labor-intensive product categories where the wage gap between forced labor and free labor is largest. Based on the 2019-2020 USTR digital services tax 301 cases and the original 2018 China 301 case methodology, the product categories most likely to appear on a final forced labor 301 product list are:

Apparel and footwear (HTS Chapters 61, 62, 64). Cotton shirts, denim, sportswear, leather footwear, and synthetic athletic shoes from India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Pakistan, and Indonesia.

Cocoa, coffee, palm oil, and other agricultural commodities (HTS Chapters 8, 9, 15, 18). West African cocoa, Indonesian and Malaysian palm oil, Honduran and Guatemalan coffee.

Cotton and textile inputs (HTS Chapters 52, 54, 55). Central Asian cotton, Indian and Pakistani spun cotton.

Solar modules and components (HTS Chapter 85). Already heavily covered by separate Section 301 and antidumping actions for China-origin solar — a forced labor 301 expansion could pull in Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam transshipment routes.

Consumer electronics assembly (HTS Chapter 85). Vietnamese, Malaysian, Indonesian, and Thai assembled electronics.

Seafood (HTS Chapter 3). Particularly fish and shrimp from Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam, which has been a focus area for forced labor advocacy for over a decade.

Lithium and rare earth processing (HTS Chapters 28, 81). Particularly DRC cobalt and Chinese-processed rare earths.

The product list would not target the entire HTS schedule for any country. USTR's pattern is to target categories where forced labor risk is most documented, US import dependence is meaningful but not absolute, and substitution paths exist.

What Importers Should Do This Week

The right preparation level depends on annual exposure. Importers with under $1M of annual imports from the 60 in-scope countries can take a watch-and-react posture. Importers with $1M to $10M of annual exposure should begin preparation now. Importers above $10M should treat this as a board-level supply chain priority for the next 6 months.

This week (April 28 - May 4, 2026).

1. Pull your last 12 months of entries by country of origin for all 60 in-scope countries. 2. Tag each entry with HTS, customs value, and supplier name. 3. Identify which entries are concentrated in the product categories most likely to be targeted (apparel, footwear, agricultural commodities, electronics assembly). 4. Read the USTR Federal Register notice and the live transcripts of the April 28-29 hearings as they post.

Next 30 days (May 2026).

1. Run portfolio-level exposure scenarios at 7.5%, 10%, 15%, and 25% Section 301 rates using the Duty & Tariff Calculator. 2. Identify substitution candidates for every SKU concentrated in in-scope countries. Note that many in-scope countries are each other's natural substitutes (Vietnam to Bangladesh, India to Pakistan, Indonesia to the Philippines), which limits the value of intra-Asia diversification. 3. File post-hearing rebuttal comments if your portfolio is meaningfully exposed — the comment window typically closes mid-May. 4. Begin renegotiating supplier contracts to add tariff pass-through clauses on existing programs.

Days 30-60 (June 2026).

1. Execute supplier audits for forced labor compliance documentation. Even if your specific country is not ultimately tariffed, having a documented compliance program reduces UFLPA detention risk separately. 2. Lock in inventory positions on long-lead-time goods from in-scope countries, especially apparel and footwear with 4 to 6 month lead times. The implementation date for any tariff is typically the entry date, not the order date — goods on the water are typically subject to the new tariff. 3. Engage customs trade counsel for high-exposure portfolios.

Days 60-90 (July 2026).

1. Watch for the USTR Stage 5 determination. If it includes a proposed tariff and product list, the Stage 6 product list comment period opens immediately. 2. File product-specific exclusion requests for any HTS classification on the proposed list where substitution is structurally impossible (cocoa, certain pharmaceuticals, specialty rare earths). 3. Update sourcing forecasts and 2027 inventory plans to reflect the implementation timeline.

How This Stacks With Other 2026 Tariff Actions

The forced labor Section 301 case is not happening in isolation. Importers should model exposure under the full 2026 tariff stack:

Section 122 universal tariff. The 10% Section 122 surcharge applies to entries from all of the 60 in-scope countries (USMCA partners are exempt, but Canada and Mexico are not on the in-scope list anyway). A new forced labor Section 301 stacks on top of Section 122.

Section 232 metals. Steel and aluminum derivatives are at 50% Section 232 from all origins (15% from the UK after the April 2026 proclamation). Section 232 and Section 122 are mutually exclusive, but Section 232 and Section 301 stack.

Existing Section 301 China. Lists 1-3 at 25%, List 4A at 7.5%. A forced labor Section 301 against China would be a separate authority and would likely stack on top of the existing China Section 301 lists.

UFLPA entry detentions. Independent of Section 301 tariffs, CBP continues to detain entries presumed to be tied to Xinjiang forced labor. UFLPA is enforced at the entry level and applies regardless of country of origin if the goods or inputs trace back to Xinjiang.

Concurrent excess capacity Section 301 case. USTR also opened a Section 301 excess capacity case in March 2026 covering 16 economies (China, EU, Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Indonesia, Malaysia, Cambodia, Thailand, Korea, Vietnam, Taiwan, Bangladesh, Mexico, Japan). Several countries appear on both the forced labor and excess capacity lists, raising the possibility of two parallel Section 301 tariffs against the same origin.

For a complete walkthrough of how Section 122, Section 232, Section 301, and base MFN duties stack across the 2026 tariff landscape, see our Tariff Stacking in 2026 guide and the Section 301 Investigations March 2026 deep dive on the underlying investigation theory.

What FreightFigures Will Track

We will publish updates the same day USTR posts hearing transcripts, the post-hearing comment period closes, USTR issues its determination, or a tariff product list is proposed. The Section 301 Hearings April-May 2026 article covers the broader 301 hearing calendar including this case and the parallel excess capacity case.

The Bottom Line

The April 28-29 hearings are the most important Section 301 procedural event in the 2026 tariff calendar. Approximately 60 economies are in scope, including most major non-USMCA US trading partners. The realistic earliest tariff implementation date is fall 2026, which gives importers a 5 to 6 month preparation runway. Importers with meaningful exposure to apparel, footwear, agricultural commodities, electronics assembly, or cotton from the in-scope countries should be pulling 12 months of entry data this week, modeling 7.5% to 25% Section 301 add-on scenarios in the next 30 days, and executing supplier substitution and contract repapering in the 30 to 90 day window.

If you need help running portfolio-level exposure analysis across the 60 in-scope countries, building substitution scenarios, or coordinating with customs trade counsel on rebuttal comments, our team at Cate Freight can model your specific entries and integrate with your customs broker. Use the homepage quote form to start a conversation.

Related Tools

Need help applying these concepts to your operation?

Our tools and insights help logistics professionals optimize freight, warehouse, and duty costs.
All free. No signup required.

Related Articles